Hey Greg, Yeah, there is not much clarity on how this new interface is supposed to work. At least, not on my part. But if it works the way I thikn you are saying it does, and VO is integrated into the iPhone version of Mac OSX, then it will be super cool. But we'll have to wait till June to find out if all of this works out...
Abdul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Kearney Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:00 PM To: General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS X by the blind Subject: Re: New iPhone Perhaps it can be accessible. How about a system that speaks what ever your finger is under. VoiceOver can do this with the mouse now and we dyslexics use it that way. So in this way you move your finger over the interface and the interface tells you what you are over. When you tap the item is says what you have done. I have been speaking with others about a simplified interface which does this. Greg On Jan 10, 2007, at 07:48 , Abdul Kamara wrote: > And I thank you for your response Josh. > > We will just have to agree to disagree on our points of > contention. But > just so we are clear, I am not in any way overse to the idea of > discovering > whether something works for me as a blind person. I don't know if > you are > partially sighted, nor do I know the level of efficiency through > which you > use the iPod. You made reference to viewing images on your iPod so > it's > probably safe to say that you have sight-- which, by the way, > mitigates the > inaccessibility of the click wheel. > > I believe it is inaccessible because there is an element of it that > responds > to fluid movement (the touch component), which gives us no point of > reference except hopefully the clicking sound, which is not always > audible > in different environments. This is not to say that it can't be > used, but > the design could be much better. Just as well, it could be much > worse. And > I have a feeling that the iPhone will be. > > I'm not saying "don't buy it"; but I am nevertheless, skeptical. > > Regarding your second point, I would just like to say that we are > not like > sighted people. We don't have the luxery of buying and fully using > consumer > electronics. Regarding iTunes: I fully agree. Now that Apple has > put out > this bit of innovation, there is no more credible excuse as to why > iTunes > should remain inaccessible. > > Abdul > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh de > Lioncourt > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:25 PM > To: General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS > X by the > blind > Subject: Re: New iPhone > > Abdul, > > Thanks for your succinct and valuable contribution to this topic. My > response will not be nearly as in depth as yours, as I haven't a > lot of > time this morning, but I did want to address just two quick things. > > First, I disagree on the click wheel. I own and adore my iPod, and > have > no problems with the click wheel at all. I do not understand, > whatsoever, why people think it is so much less accessible than > anything > else. It would be nice if the menu options were voiced, but aside from > that, it is extremely usable. Telephone keypads, TV remote controls, > microwave ovens, and any number of gadgets have controls which must be > memorized by the blind, and tend to be far more difficult to manage > than > Apple's click wheel, which I happen to like and have found far easier > than most of the above items. > > Why a blindee would want the new iPhone is a fairly simple answer. For > many of the same reasons a sighted person would, plus the potential > for > running VoiceOver. I'm not turned off by gadgets that might take > time to > learn to use. SO many visually impaired folks don't want to be > bothered > to learn to use something, which is the case with iPods. They're > missing > out in a lot of cases. They hear, "Oh, the click wheel is horribly > inaccessible," and they take that as gospel. I'm sure glad i didn't. > > So many in the VI community are always so ready to assume something > isn't accessible. If it doesn't talk, it's not worth their time. If > more > would go in with an open mind, you'd find there are a lot of things > you > can get a lot of use or enjoyment out of. If you want to complain > about > inaccessibility, complain about iTunes on the Mac, which I think very > much qualifies. While there are some workarounds, there are many > things > that simply are impossible with it. Under Windows, iTunes and > Window-Eyes are tricky, but totally useable and I can basically do > anything a sighted person can, short of managing photos. I haven't > looked in great detail at the iTunes store, but with a little patience > that probably could be done as well. > > > Abdul Kamara wrote: >> Greetings All, >> >> Just a few clarifications regarding the iPhone. >> >> It makes sense that Apple chose Cingular. The GSM market share in >> the U.S >> has exceeded 50%, and Cingular is the largest GSM provider in >> America. In >> 2004 Deutche Telecom (parent of T-mobile, another GSM carrier) >> reported >> having a subscriber base of 99 million, making it only the sixth >> largest >> mobile phone carrier in the world, this is to say nothing of >> Vodaphone and >> other formidable GSM providers. Relative to Nokia or even >> Motarola, Apple >> is a small firm, that needs to carefully target it's resources for >> areas > of >> greater opportunity. In the mobile phone market, CDMA is not it. >> Bottom >> line, the world has gone GSM and so should the U.S. By the way, T- >> mobile >> users, don't dispare. As Cingular and T-mobile often share the same > towers >> (ergo the same technology), it's likely that the iPhone can be >> made to >> function with your service. >> >> The benefits of Apple's choice, are not only economical, but also > personal. >> I've recently moved to the UK and I'm quite pleased that I did not >> have to >> replace my Quad-band GSM phone from Samsung. All I had to do was >> pop in a >> pay-as-you-go SIM and just like that... Were I to own an iPhone >> the same >> would hold true, and given how expensive mobile phones can be, >> it's a good >> thing that I don't have to own a phone for the U.S and another for >> when I >> travel. >> >> So, to those complaining that iPhone is not appealing to the >> majority of > the >> U.S market, I say that first, it's not the majority. And second, >> rather >> than complaining about Apple, complain about your carrier's >> unwillingness > to >> adhere to a defacto world standard. Or, if having an iPhone is >> simply not >> important to you, don't complain at all. >> >> Better still, if we are going to complain, it should perhaps be >> over THE >> issue. >> >> Some of you have been asking whether mobile speak can be made to >> function > on >> the phone. It's been said while also aknowledging that iPhone >> will be >> running Mac OSX, and not Simbean or other derivatives therein. >> Wouldn't a >> safer bet be that the phone might run VO and/or Zoom? Rather, >> wouldn't it >> be nicer if it actually was a safe bet? >> >> In any event I'm curious as to why any blind person would want to >> have > this >> phone. Notwithstanding any possible accessible software running on >> it, it > is >> a touch screen device. The physical interface is by all accounts, >> not > blind >> friendly. Yet while the click wheel on the previous generation >> iPods are >> bad enough, they are still manageable. >> >> >> >> Abdul >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
